Dylan

I know it's a CR2, but this actually frustrates me (if it's true). I bought the mark II version because it seemed like the replacement for the brick (which I owned). Honestly, professionals need to know what to expect when they make large purchases like this. Canon knew they were going to release an IS version when they sold the non IS and I took the bait totally thinking I made the right purchase. I was shocked that they came out with a F4 version, but now this? It's simply an inconvenience and can end up costing someone a lot of money with the drop in price for what they paid for the mark II in such a short time-frame. So I lose $400 or so and forced to try and find a seller. Thanks Canon.

I see this being $2899 at introduction in around 2014. This was planned all along. They release the non IS 24-70 first and tempt all the early adopters in to dropping $2300 bucks. Then, 2 years later, they make a new latest and greatest 24-70 IS, and get all those early adopters to fork over top dollar for another version.They could have made this lens last year, but then they wouldn't have sold so many non IS versions to people who will eventually upgrade to the IS(like so many on here.)There are only a few zoom lenses that can create this much anticipation and excitement, and Canon plans on maximizing that excitement in to as much sales as possible.

The price would have to be about what you say, or else who would ever keep buying the Non-IS version? Only Zeiss could keep a straight face charging that price on a normal zoom. Of course to compete with Zeiss, they would also have to deliberately disable IS AND AF at the same time they jacked up the price?

After my five dreadful 24-70 f/2.8 MkI copies, I reluctantly compromised with a 24-105 f/4is. What a pleasant surprise! I like IS.

Last month I had a 48 hour test drive of the 24-70 f/2.8II. Wow, it's a stunner. Yep, the IS version will more than likely cost more than the approx $2300 being asked for the non-IS release, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a price drop in the non-IS lens when the IS ships. They couldn't charge more than the 70-200 f/2.8ISII.

Well I for one am really pleased. I had no idea what I wanted for Xmas 2013. But then it might not be ready in time. Valentine's Day 2014 perhaps. Oh wait, I wouldn't want to get the first release in case there is something wrong. Ahhh I know, Xmas 2014. How exciting.....

Zlatko

I simply can't wait for a version II with IS. This is a bread and butter lens. I bought the current version and have already gotten a lot of use out of it. IS is nice to have, but I wouldn't wait a year or more for it.

I really don't see this being priced too much higher than the current 24-70 2.8. I think Canon would hurt themselves more by pricing it so high. My personal prediction is for this lens to come in around $2499 while the current 24-70 drops to between $1899 and $1999.

Hey, I could be very wrong, but there's not way I'll be picking one up at that price. I'll be waiting a couple years for it to become a bit more reasonable (And even then, I'll probably go with the cheaper non-is version)

I don't think its just a matter of price... I actually think that they really need to push the release date as far as possible in order to avoid infuriating current buyers. If a new lens is just out of the oven, you don't expect the company to put out in the market exactly what this should have been in about a year... every person that bought the mII will feel cheated, and that is not a good practice!!!

(Although Apple does it every time they put out a new product in the market almost identical to the previous one and everyone pays them... so what do I know really! )

The other problem is that the mII release price was just too much!... it should have been $1900 not $2500, so now they have no price to ask for this one, as no one will pay $3000 for this one over the Tamron, even if its 3 times better. I really can't understand Canon current lens roadmap, save for the pancake 40!

After my five dreadful 24-70 f/2.8 MkI copies, I reluctantly compromised with a 24-105 f/4is. What a pleasant surprise! I like IS.

Last month I had a 48 hour test drive of the 24-70 f/2.8II. Wow, it's a stunner. Yep, the IS version will more than likely cost more than the approx $2300 being asked for the non-IS release, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a price drop in the non-IS lens when the IS ships. They couldn't charge more than the 70-200 f/2.8ISII.

-PW

WANNA BET?!?!?!?!?!? In case you haven't noticed...Canon's pricing policies since the Tsunami have been off the charts....

IS. Meh. IS isn't going to stop your subjects moving. Period. Also I quite like the higher ISO grain noise of the 5D Mark III. IS is not an issue at this focal length

The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.

There are plans to release an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS sometime in the next 18 months. I have confirmed from two sources that the end of 2013 or early 2014 is the earliest we’d see a production model announced.</p><p>There are no plans for a non-IS 24-70 f/4L.

It's not a surprise that Canon has been researching this. However, a fact that has been flogged repeatedly on these forums is that Canon is out to make money, not just produce great gear. Is it really cost-effective for Canon to support both of these lenses? Either this is targeted to the video crowd (supposing strong sales of the non-IS Mk II to the stills-only crowd) or the Mk II isn't selling well enough. If the problem is lack of Mk II sales, then maybe the IS model would replace the Mk II. That would be weird, though...

This just doesn't make sense unless they had delays with the IS version, and felt compelled to release the non-IS Mk II as an interim solution.

It's all just idyll speculation (pun intended) on my part since I can only dream about lenses too expensive for my hobby budget.

IS. Meh. IS isn't going to stop your subjects moving. Period. Also I quite like the higher ISO grain noise of the 5D Mark III. IS is not an issue at this focal length

That may be true for your shooting style, but at evening events I shoot with flash & like to hold the background as much as possible. That means slower shutter speeds. Of course IS is not going to stop motion blur, but it definitely delivers a higher percentage of keepers. Also handy for low light industrial shoots when you've got to move fast and don't always have time to set up the tripod. IS is handy for heaps more applications too. It's just another tool in the kitbag that you learn the limitations of and use it to the max.

The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.